ence on which a few words may be given, because I cannot help thinking it has been completely misunderstood. All readers of Shakespeare's biography are familiar with the allusion to Shakespeare supposed to be contained in Robert Greene's pamphlet,—“A Groatsworth of Wit purchased with a Million of Repentance." The writer seems to be very angry with some one who has by false pretences secured a prize which legitimate dramatic authors and playwrights, belonging officially to the author's craft, have been unable to secure. The successful man is "an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hyde supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you, and being an absolute Johannes Factotum is, in his owne conceit, the only Shake-Scene in a countrie." This was published in 1596,-but entered at Stationer's Hall in September 1592, and probably published for the first time in that year. Now whatever interpretation we may give to these cryptic words, I do not think we can gather from them that the "upstart crow" was an author, but only an actor, who pretended to be an author also. man at the theatre he is not one of the writers' class, and

For being only a handy

He is wearing him, and pre

has no right to profess himself an author. feathers which do not rightfully belong to tending to be what he really was not. He is not a dramatist, but only a spouter. All this is consistent with the idea that Shakspere, if he is intended, was not the writer of the plays which were attributed to him, and thus the question not only remains open, it is actually started, and a clear place is left for the Baconian or any other hypothesis. But is the allusion to Shakspere at all? I very much doubt it. In 1592 "Shakespeare" did not exist in literature at all, and only two or three of the plays which subsequently appeared under this name could have been written. It is difficult to understand how any soreness could have been occasioned in Greene's mind by William Shakspere's success at that time, such as it was, either as an author or an actor.

POETRY, NOT HISTORY.

15

And I do not find in the word Shake-scene any necessary reference to Shakspere. The word probably only points sarcastically to some pompous and ostentatious player who treads heavily on the boards, shaking the stage with his footsteps and the house with his thunder. This same self-asserting personage is admirably described by the poet :

And with ridiculous and awkward action,
Which,-slanderer !—he imitation calls,
He pageants us. Sometime, great Agamemnon,
Thy topless deputation he puts on,

And, like a strutting player whose conceit
Lies in his hamstring, and doth think it rich

To hear the wooden dialogue and sound

'Twixt his stretched footing and the scaffoldage,—
Such to-be-pitied and o'er wrested seeming
He acts thy greatness in: and when he speaks
'Tis like a chime a-mending; with terms unsquared,
Which from the tongue of roaring Typhon dropped,
Would seem hyperboles :-At this fusty stuff Achilles
Laughs out a loud applause.

(Tro. Cr. 1. iii. 149).

Unfortunately very few persons read Greene's tract in extenso; the allusion extracts are all they know. If, however, any reader will trouble himself to read the whole, with fresh and unpreoccupied mind, I am inclined to think he will very seriously doubt whether it is an outcome of Greene's personal history in any sense. It reads like a sort of poetical romance, fanciful and absolutely unhistoric. Any one might pass over this allusion passage, as it occurs in the book, without detecting anything autobiographic. It might even have been written by the Shakespearean poet himself to draw attention to his then unknown and unnoticed plays. The use ordinarily made of it is, to say the least, one of very doubtful validity, and if any allusion is secreted in it, the interpretation is quite natural which supposes that the real author is concealed, and that some unscrupulous player profits by the oppor

tunity of anonymous authorship, and takes the credit to himself.

3.-PROBABILITIES.

If William Shakspere was the monarch of Parnassus, the greatest philosophic poet and dramatist the world has ever seen, some traces of this pre-eminence might be expected to survive in history. He did not live in prehistoric times, nor in the midst of social anarchy and revolution in which the marks of individual greatness might be extinguished. His contemporaries are fairly well known, and he could not have been less noticed than Ben Jonson, or Raleigh. Such a mighty man might be expected to leave behind him some such traces as the following:

1. Some direct documentary evidence of authorship— some manuscript, or letters, something which an autograph hunter would eagerly take possession of and carefully preserve.

2. Some genuine personal allusions, not relating to or arising out of his poetry, but proper to himself,—some tradition of weighty conversation, or wise letters,—some literary scraps dropped in conversation or correspondence.

3. Some traces of other literary work, or serious occupation, besides the poems.

4. Some traces of a great and imposing personality, who would honour any society by his presence,-some record of his ability to leave a personal impression on his contemporaries answering to and commensurate with the literary impression which he has left upon the world.

5. Some evidence that he was attracted by those things which interest cultivated men, books, libraries, intellectual society, correspondence with men of kindred tastes and accomplishments,-something to connect him with the science, or studies of the time.

6. Some relics of his library,-books which he valued or

presented to his friends, which they would preserve as heir-looms and memorials of the greatest man they ever knew. The only book that has ever been supposed to belong to him is a copy of Florio's "Montaigne," now in the British Museum. But unfortunately the signature in this book is supposed by capable judges to have been forged.

7. Some traditions pointing to his connexion with public life, with which his writings shew him to have been remarkably familiar,-some account of his studies in ancient and modern history and classic literature,some proofs of foreign travel, especially in Italy and France, - something to account for his exceptional acquaintance with courts, kings and upper-class society -something to explain his distaste for the lower and middle classes and his patrician scorn for the common people.

8. Some indications that he valued learning for its own sake and was ready to diffuse it, by giving his own children a good education, and by promoting intellectual pursuits in Stratford when he retired from business and took up his residence there, a wealthy and unoccupied

man.

I say some such lights as these might be expected to pierce through the gloom that surrounds the man. I do not claim that all these characteristic marks of greatness should be visible, but some of them should, and we are entitled to ask why it is that none of these questions are ever raised in the critical accounts of Shakspere. We have plenty of details of what he must have been, and consequently purely fanciful pictures of what he was, for which not a shred of historic basis can be found.

In further pursuit of this line of enquiry we may notice two or three characteristics which the true Shakespeare certainly possessed, and which William Shakspere almost as certainly did not possess.

C

4.-THE LAWYER.

Several books have been written in illustration of Shakespeare's legal accomplishments, the most celebrated though not the best, being that by Lord Campbell. This knowledge, all the lawyers admit,—was not the babble of an amateur, coached up for special occasions. He does not sport his little legal lore like a smatterer, loading particular plays or scenes with it, and then dropping it till the next law business is required—it is always ready—it is not reserved for dramatic situations involving legal points, but it turns up unexpectedly, for allusion, or decoration or simple expression of a vivid and pointed character. When it is the ruling idea it is presented with a daring affluence and freedom which no amateur could venture to attempt. I do not think any one but a trained lawyer could have written Sonnet 87. Only a lawyer can expound its technicalities or say what branch of legal science is employed, or what statutory principles are intended. And yet it is intelligible to the most unprofessional reader. The law learning is so profound and yet so well digested, that it blends with all other learning and can be used in illustration of anything. Here it is :

:

Farewell! Thou art too dear for my possessing,
And like enough thou know'st thy estimate :
The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;

My bonds in thee are all determinate.

For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
And for that riches where is my deserving?
The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
And so my patent back again is swerving.
Thyself thou gav'st, thy own worth then not knowing,
Or me, to whom thou gav'st it, else mistaking;

So thy great gift, upon misprison growing,
Comes home again on better judgment making.
Thus have I held thee, as a dream doth flatter,

In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.

Sonnet 46, is almost as legal, and could (or would) scarcely have been written by an amateur.